wahoo skipper

Thursday, November 10, 2011 8:17 AM

I wonder how all of these knuckleheads would feel if we took away their iPhones, iPads, laptops, Playstations, Blue Rays, etc. All are items of "excess" that most of these yahoos wouldn't be able to live without.

Lord Gonchar

Carrie J.

Thursday, November 10, 2011 3:49 PM

I thought Shamu was sporting an awful lot of bling last time I was at Sea World... you know, while cranking out souvenirs to be sold in the gift shop. And the diamond chips in the ball that the dolphins jump and touch with their nose... well, that's just flashy.

Jerry

RatherGoodBear

Thursday, November 10, 2011 11:51 PM

Everybody knows that of that $414, expenses come out to $0.39, leaving Sea World with a nifty profit of $413.61. The only fair thing to do would be for business owners to pay for all their expenses from the golden goose or magic treasure chest buried in their backyard, or whatever it is they all own, and give away their products and services for free. Because the idea that customers should actually pay for their expenses and profits is downright greed!

CP Chris

Friday, November 11, 2011 5:21 AM

For what it's worth, "being rich should be illegal" isn't exactly the message I've been getting from the occupy movement. As with any movement, there are some on the fringe, but my take has been that most people are angry with how some of the people at the top have gotten rich, not that they are rich.

There's nothing wrong with working hard and getting rich, or hell, even doing nothing while inheriting millions from your family, but getting rich by engaging in questionable if not outright illegal activities should not ever be tolerated. Things like the investment bankers who decimated 401k's and most of the economy in order to enrich themselves, banks engaging in mortgage fraud, and hugely profitable companies using the federal tax code (that they paid congress to create) as a profit center for corporate welfare. Normally the government's job is to protect against those things, but they've long since been bought out by the people who are doing them. These are the things that the occupy people are protesting.

Back on topic. Yes, this occupy Sea World thing is absurd and does nothing to drive home the points the larger occupy movement is trying to make. I believe most of the "corporations are greedy" stuff is mostly the result of the widening gap in income inequality rather than corporations truly looking to screw over their customers (although examples of the latter certainly exist, look no further than Bank of America's failed debit card fee). As the inequality gap gets larger, more people can no longer afford things that used to be affordable for them. It's easy to blame it on "corporate greed' if you don't step back to look at the bigger picture.

And then one day you find ten years have got behind youNo one told you when to run, you missed the starting gun

rollergator

Friday, November 11, 2011 1:34 PM

The real "message" of OWS, in my fairly-educated opinion, it that the returns on investment have grown exponentially over the last generation while returns on labor have stagnated if not shrunk. In economics terms, there realy are two inputs to production: capital, and labor. If you look at the NBA (which I think of as an excellent example, since all parties are educated, and most of them millionaires) - they tend to agree at some point on an approximate 50-50 split. Historically, that's been the optimal point for labor-intensive "services" industries, where the capital investment might be minimal (or, in the case of pro sports facilities, more often subsidized bytaxpayers). In industries where large amounts of investment is made in materials - let's just say building an automobile - then the returns to labor necessarily must go down to acount for the cost of raw materials, buildings, electricity to power the plants, etc. Still, there is supposed to be some measure of reasonableness in terms of returns to labor vs. capital. And typically is...there's a reason our auto industry was ABLE to pay their workers those "outrageous union wages" for so many years. When the industry started to lose market share to Japan, understandably wages in the US should have fallen - and we could have started to build more cars that resembled the Japanese models that consumers apparently were beginning to prefer...on the margin.

Just talking the other day - seems like in "the good olde days", businesses had to satisfy three groups of people. First, customers. Second and third, in roughly equal proportions, were ownership and employees. But customers came first...without them you have no business, yadda yadda. Now, it seems like most businesses you deal with, are focused on the next quarterly profits for their investors, and employees as well as customers easily get lost in the shuffle. That's become the focus of upper management in most industries, throughout the US at least. The downside has been extreme, and unsettling to the long-term growth and prosperity of the nation as a whole. Growth depends on MANY people having enough expendable income to keep demand high even during downturns. We no longer have enough people in those circumstances...

I certainly don't speak for the OWS movement - but I kinda wish I did. Losing focus is one of the *main* problems with having "hippie-type leadership" where no one's really in charge is that people who BELIEVE (wink) they've got a good idea for where to take the movement next aren't really among the best and the brightest - just among the most charismatic.

OccupySeaWorld? Major distraction, serves no purpose for the movement, "idiotic" probably is the best word for it. My opinion...

Jeff

Friday, November 11, 2011 3:53 PM

See, I would be inclined to align myself with such a "cause" if it were rooted in the ideas that Bill is talking about. However, mostly what we have is whiney types who hold signs saying "down with capitalism" and other such nonsense that is just the far opposite of the Tea Bag nonsense. In either case, being angry is not a platform, or a movement.